Alternative remedy and proportionality in customs confiscation: jurisdiction sustained, relief granted, and penalty reduced for an unauthorised import.

The High Court's Original Side jurisdiction was treated as restored by the Constitution, so it could entertain a section 45 Specific Relief Act petition and grant mandamus-like relief. The existence of appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act did not oust that jurisdiction, because an alternative remedy bars relief only when it is specific and adequate; on the facts, no effective remedy remained. In customs confiscation, the import was unauthorised, but the Court considered the importer's honest belief and the disproportionate nature of the penalty. The confiscation fine was reduced and release of the goods was directed on payment of customs duty plus 12.5% of value in lieu of confiscation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act to entertain the application and grant mandamus-like relief; (ii) whether the availability of appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act barred the exercise of that jurisdiction; (iii) whether the confiscation fine imposed for importing diesel engines under licences for engines above 20 H.P. was excessive and liable to be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act to entertain the application and grant mandamus-like relief.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Original Side of the High Court was held to have been restored by the proviso to Article 225 of the Constitution of India. The restriction formerly associated with section 226 of the Government of India Act, 1935 did not survive to deny the High Court the power to issue directions in the nature of mandamus under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act. The provision was treated as available to the High Court even though it was not available to subordinate civil courts in the same manner.

Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition and to grant relief under section 45 of the Specific Relief Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the availability of appeal and revision under the Sea Customs Act barred the exercise of that jurisdiction.

Analysis: The mere existence of an alternative remedy was held not to oust jurisdiction; it was only a matter affecting discretion. The appeal remedy had become barred by limitation, and the revision remedy was not treated as a specific and adequate remedy in the circumstances, particularly having regard to the delay already caused and the need for prompt relief. The Court held that the adequacy and effectiveness of the alternative remedy must be considered, and on the facts no adequate remedy remained.

Conclusion: The existence of appeal and revision did not bar relief, and the Court proceeded to exercise its jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether the confiscation fine imposed for importing diesel engines under licences for engines above 20 H.P. was excessive and liable to be reduced.

Analysis: The import was held to be unauthorised because engines described as 20 to 22 H.P. were not clearly above 20 H.P. for the purpose of the licences. However, the Court found that the petitioner acted under an honest belief reinforced by other Customs rulings and manufacturers' communications, and that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the nature of the breach. The appropriate order was considered to be payment of customs duty plus a moderated fine in lieu of confiscation, rather than a fine nearly equal to the value of the goods.

Conclusion: The confiscation fine was reduced, and release of the goods was directed on payment of customs duty plus 12.5% of the value in lieu of confiscation.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded to the extent that the High Court intervened in the Customs order, upheld its own jurisdiction, rejected the objection based on alternative remedy, and substituted a substantially reduced monetary burden for the original confiscatory penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: The existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ-like relief where the remedy is not specific and adequate, and a confiscatory penalty may be interfered with when it is disproportionate to the nature of the infraction and inconsistent with justice, equity and good conscience.

---